[vigfus]

South's 2♣ bid is strong (South's hand is typical)
N/S are Average players, not regular partnership. West's 2NT bid is not alerted. North asks about the meaning and East describes it as strong. (Well... many HCP's in this deck.)
After bidding is over, and before North makes his opening lead, west corrects his partners explaination, and tells he meant his call as minors. North calls TD, not happy. North said he would have bid othervise with correct explaination of wests 2NT call.

Law 21B1a does not allow TD to offer North the possibility to change his call. I decided I could not offer South to change his call, because now he knows partner has some good cards. I asked players to finish the board. Lead was 7♥ and 12 tricks.
N/S got wrong explaination which is violation of law 75B.

Now TD must decide that if North himself should realize that something is wrong about the opp's bidding, and continue to 6.
Well North did not, but called TD at once when he got the right explaination.

If TD decides that North should go to 6♠, then the score is 4♠, +480
If TD decides that the wrong explaination damaged N/S, then the score is 6♠, +980

I ruled 6♠ +980

Greetings, Vigfus Palsson

---

[wank]

i'm presuming east-west had no agreement so north was misinformed

obviously north was absurd - he should be bidding on as a psyche by west would be indicated even if the east's defintion of west's call was accurate.



did north make a serious error? yes
was it unrelated to the infraction? no, he might be clueless how to deal with psyches, but he might be less clueless how to deal with unusual NT overcalls.

so was north's action wild and gambling? well, it was wildly soft, but that's just word play. imo the laws should be changed to include such bidding as a reason to be deny redress, but in the meantime i think you have to give them an adjusted score. 100% of slam.

btw west shouldn't correct the misinformation until after the hand. still, no harm done on that regard.

[blackshoe]

I gather West, not North, was on lead.

Defenders are not supposed to correct a presumed incorrect explanation until after the play.

I don't think you can deny South the opportunity to change his call just because he has UI - and that he has UI may not matter anyway*. The question would be whether his final pass was based on the incorrect explanation.

*What does the double mean in NS's system? It may be that AI from the double means that South's actions are no longer constrained by UI.

I'd want to ask a few more questions of NS, but I think adjusting to 6♠ making is probably right.

[A2003]

North should go to 6♠, using the judgement, then the score is 4♠, +480